Cornell offers course on intelligent design
by KrauzeAllen MacNeill, who teaches introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University, has just announced the course "Evolution and Design: Is There Purpose in Nature?". I was pleased to see that this course doesn't promulgate the ahistorical belief that intelligent design was invented by a Christian lawyer in the 80s, but has instead chosen to acknowledge the long history of the concept:
The current debate over "intelligent design theory" is only the latest phase in the perennial debate over the question of design in nature. Beginning with Aristotle's "final cause," this idea was the dominant explanation for biological adaptation in nature until the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. Darwin's work united the biological sciences with the other natural sciences by providing a non-teleological explanation for the origin of adaptation. However, Darwin's theory has been repeatedly challenged by theories invoking design in nature.
The latest challenge to the neo-darwinian theory of evolution has come from the "intelligent design movement," spearheaded by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. In this course, we will read extensively from authors on both sides of this debate, including Francisco Ayala, Michael Behe, Richard Dawkins, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Ernst Mayr, and Michael Ruse. Our intent will be to sort out the various issues at play, and to come to clarity on how those issues can be integrated into the perspective of the natural sciences as a whole.
According to the IDEA Club at Provine Cornell, MacNeill is "always ready to go out of his way to encourage diversity of thought", and they're looking forward to the course starting.
April 10th, 2006 at 8:04 am
"IDEA Club at Provine" — Freudian slip?
Comment by keiths — April 10, 2006 @ 8:04 am
April 10th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Hi Keith,
Got it, thanks!
Comment by Krauze — April 10, 2006 @ 8:27 am
April 10th, 2006 at 8:47 am
Cool! This is where ID should be discussed, right now.
Comment by Bilbo — April 10, 2006 @ 8:47 am
April 10th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Is this considered a course in science, philosophy, philosophy of science?
Comment by bFast — April 10, 2006 @ 11:05 am
April 10th, 2006 at 11:26 am
It's an interdisciplinary course, but it's primary home is in the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology(EEB) Department — generally considered science, last I checked.
Comment by lilias — April 10, 2006 @ 11:26 am
April 10th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Allen MacNeill replies:
The course is, indeed, interdisciplinary. Credit is available through four departments: ecology & evolutionary biology, biology & society, history (of science), and science & technology studies. And it isn't just ID that will be discussed. The existence of design and/or purpose in nature (technically "teleology") has been debated for millennia. We will be approaching the topic from both a historical and philosophical point of view, using modern ID theory as a focus for our discussions. I expect that at least some participants will be surprised to learn that the question of purpose in nature has been addressed by evolutionary biologists such as Francisco Ayala, Ernst Mayr, Colin Pittendrigh, and William Wimsatt, as well as by philosophers of science such as Ernst Nagel and Andrew Woodfield. We will be reading papers and excerpts from these and other authors, as well as the books listed in the reading list. I hope that all participants will come out of the course with a much clearer understanding of just what design and purpose is, how we can recognize it, and what part it plays in natural systems.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 10, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Dr. MacNeill,
Anyway to take your course online?
Comment by Bilbo — April 10, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
I'm confused. It's being offered as a class that falls under science, but the professor teaching it says that ID is bunk.
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/12/guest_post_allen_macneill_fisk.php
Am I missing something here? The course might not push the idea that it was started in the 80's, but it surely will push the idea that it isn't science, but rather religion, no?
Comment by thebluesite — April 10, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Hi Blue,
Just because a teacher has a specific belief doesn't mean that he'll push this belief on his students. And judging from IDEA's comments, it sounds as if Allen MacNeill is one of those teachers who'll let his students come to their own conclusions.
Comment by Krauze — April 10, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Well, I'm skeptical that a professor who thinks ID isn't science will teach that ID might be science afterall. Especially with such public ideas opposing such a view.
From that post alone (in my last comment) he attacks Dembski as a liar, and asks what dream world he lives in. He says that ID has "no research and no results," and that ID is "supernatural" (it isn't)…He states that ID "can't possibly be studied, verified, or falsified by any conceivable scientific experiment or observation"
He says there are NO peer-reviewed ID papers out there, and states:
On Judge Jones' decision, he says, "That's why Judge Jones correctly asserted that "intelligent design theory" isn't science; because (wait for it) … it isn't."
Here is what he has to say of IDers:
Do we REALLY expect a guy who says all of this to teach ID theory fairly in ANY manner?
Comment by thebluesite — April 10, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
I should also note that one the required readings of his course is William Dembski's book, the Design Inference.
I'm supposed to believe he's going to require his students to read the works of a man he calls a bald-faced liar who is waging a war on science and be fair about it?
That's too absurd to believe.
Comment by thebluesite — April 10, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Hi Blue,
Let's see how Allen MacNeill teaches his course (I'm sure the IDEA guys will keep us updated) before criticizing him.
Comment by Krauze — April 10, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Krause:
Yes, I'm excited about the course. I just hope he can keep his disdain from showing. Understanding that ID isn't actually "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," but actually taps into a tradition which goes back at least as far as Plato/Socrates should help.
Comment by Lutepisc — April 10, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
In response to Bilbo (April 10, 2006 @ 2:27 PM):
Unfortunately, it isn't possible to take the course for credit online. However, I intend to put as many of the course materials as possible online (via my blog at http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/, plus a course website still under development), so if readers would like to follow along it will be possible to do so. That said, I find that I get the most out of courses like this from class discussion, and that (like HIV) is not communicable over the Web.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 10, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
To Krauze, Lutepisc, & the bluesite:
I have, indeed, commented on other sites that I find Wm. Dembski's comments (especially at Uncommon Dissent) to frequently descend into ad hominem attacks, changing the subject, and other rhetorical gimmicks intended to distract the reader from the logical weakness of his position. I have also commented on some of the weaknesses of M. Behe's arguments, but find him (unlike Dembski) to be a gentleman, a scholar, and a worthy opponent.
What makes Behe a worthy opponent (and Dembski an unworthy one) is that Behe "follows the rules" of academic debate: he sticks to the subject, constructs his arguments by citing facts and inferences from facts, and never descends to the kind of vicious character assasination that Dembski and his crew at Uncommon Descent seem to revel in. Behe recognizes what Demski apparently seems to reject out of hand: that all of us are motivated by an honest search for understanding of the workings of nature, and that we welcome a worthy opponent who helps us clarify our own beliefs and arguments.
That is precisely what I hope will happen in the course I am offering this summer. As an evolutionary biologist, I will of course be entering the discussion from the standpoint of a methodological naturalist, with all of the metaphysical assumptions that position entails. However, if am to hold my head up in the "community of scholars" I must be as prepared to change my position in the face of superior logic and evidence as I will be prepared to try to change the minds of my colleagues. This is what academics is all about, a fact that Dembski, DaveScot, and others of their ilk have apparently lost sight of long ago.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 10, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
To Krauze:
Indeed, I have already invited members of the Cornell IDEA Club to participate in the course if they can. At least one member has already contacted me about this, and I hope others will. It is only through the free and uninhibited exchange of ideas that we eventually come to clarity on issues such as this one. My honest thanks to you, both for your caveat and for the general tenor of your remarks on this website. A worthy opponent indeed…
En guarde, mon ami!
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 10, 2006 @ 5:41 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Reading about this course makes me wish I were a Cornell undergraduate. This is why universities exist.
Jealous here in Chicago of the Ithaca discussions to come this summer…lucky! (said in a Napoleon Dynamite voice)
Comment by Paul Nelson — April 10, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Dr. MacNeill,
thebluesite quoted you as saying,
"It's time for everybody on both sides of the issue to face the fact that Dembski and his cohorts are either profoundly deluded, or deliberate, bald-faced liars. My money's on the clean-shaven hypothesis"¦."
Is that quote correct? If so, in what way would Dembski's failing to be "a gentleman, a scholar, and a worthy opponent" have any implication for the truth of his positions? You are apparently (if the quote is correct) fairly certain that Dembski ("and his cohorts") are "bald-faced liars" Regarding what? Intelligent Design? The mathematics or logic behind inferring Intelligent Design? Their claim that Richard Dawkins is a ninny?
Comment by Douglas — April 10, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
If Dembski is a liar, an enemy of science, and waging a war on science, why he is required reading for your course in science?
Dembski lives in a dream world, is unscholarly, he is waging a war on science (and he's actually an enemy of science), he's a bald-faced liar, and worse. All of those who post at Uncommon Descent are in the same boat. They are all either deluded or bald-faced liars. They are waging a war on science. They are enemies of science that must be defeated!
But, I'm totally against character assassination.
Got ya, professor. Thank goodness you replied. After that rant, I've no doubt your course will be fair.
'Here students, I think this man is a liar, unscholarly, deluded, and he's waging a war on science…but read his book and we'll discuss it fairly (wink wink).'
I wonder what a student thinks when he reads your quotes on Dembski after seeing his book on the required reading list? Does anyone here honestly think the professor's attacks online won't have any effect on the student's overall impressions, conclusions, etc?!
Young people are likely to see the professor as an authority on the issue at hand and take his personal attacks of Dembski and others into account when shaping their own views, which makes it likely they will never be able to read Dembski's book fairly! I know if I had a professor who attacked someone on my reading list, I wouldn't have much faith that the professor would give the writer much of a fair shake.
Comment by thebluesite — April 10, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
In the link posted by TheBlueSite, Dr. McNeill says:
Dr. McNeill, you charge Dembski with "being a liar" etc, etc, but you clearly choose in the above quote to misunderstand him. If I understand Dembski, approaching his statements with a bias towards believing that they are genuine, I would interpret his view of "winning the day" as having established a respecable seat at the table of science, not one of having usurped "evolutionary biology," especially since most IDers, including Debmski, recognize evolution (common descent) — at least the evolution (unfolding) of the design — as valid.
I suggest that by finding a way to interpret Dr. Dembski's statemens as false when they can easily be interpreted as valid you at minimum prove to be what you claim he is.
Comment by bFast — April 10, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
As I have stated earlier, I have never been put off in my interactions with Michael Behe. Indeed, we invited him here to Cornell to make a presentation in our evolution class, which he did several years ago. His presentation was both made and received politely, and was followed by some very vigorous, but good-natured questions and answers. This is precisely the kind of behavior one expects from a member of the "community of scholars".
By contrast, simply read the other posts in this blog concerning William Dembski's behavior in the Pianka affair, or surf on over to Uncommon Dissent and read the general tenor of the comments there. Is it really necessary for me to point out how they differ from the demeanor that I have described for Michael Behe? There is a reason that Dembski (and the people who follow his lead) are ignored and reviled by members of the academic community, a reason which I need not describe further.
I have already stated my position vis-a-vis my course, and have had many stimulating (and rewarding) discussions with the members of the Cornell IDEA Club since their founding last year. We have, I hope, discovered that we are real people with a passion for discovery and understanding, combined with a genuine respect for each other's positions. We may not agree, but I hope that this will never interfere with our ability to learn from each other, nor with our ability to recognize each other's humanity. What else would you have me say?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 10, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Blue:
I would not worry about such things. From what he has posted here, it would seem MacNeill plans to teach a course that encourages "the free and uninhibited exchange of ideas." That he is letting Behe and Dembski make their case in their own words (by requiring their books) is fair enough.
Look at it this way. If ID is false, it is a good thing to have students exposed to criticism of ID. If there is truth to ID, it is a good thing to have students exposed to criticism of ID. For example, there might be a budding ID theorist in MacNeill's class who might be challenged and stimulated to address problems with the mainstream ID arguments.
As for MacNeill's comments on the web, there is no reason to think this is relevant to what will be taught in the classroom.
Comment by MikeGene — April 10, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
the bluesite wrote:
"I know if I had a professor who attacked someone on my reading list, I wouldn't have much faith that the professor would give the writer much of a fair shake."
And indeed, I stand justly accused of the kind of behavior that I have criticized in Dr. Dembski. My students and friends will understand that I shall try to amend such behavior in the future.
What I should have done (but did not) was to make it clear that I was attacking Dr. Dembski's ideas and the way in which he was expressing them, rather than himself. I have always admired Ernst Mayr's approach to such disagreements. He believed that each of us should present our ideas as clearly and as forcefully as we can, so that there is no mistaking our position or the logic and evidence upon which it based. I must admit that Ernst rarely backed down in such disputes, but on the rare occasion that he did, he was both gracious in defeat and generous in his praise for his opponents. Those are the qualities to which I aspire; if I have fallen short of them (and no one is more aware of this than I am), then I can only state that in the future I shall endeavor to do better.
And please rest assured on this point: my students have always known (and will be informed of this fact at the beginning of the course this summefr) that they are not required to believe what I believe. However, they are absolutely required to believe something, and to defend that belief with all of the intellectual tools at their disposal. To do less is to dishonor one's opponent, and in so doing to dishonor one's self.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 10, 2006 @ 8:33 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
As far as I'm concerned nothing, Dr. MacNeill. I hope you can do as credible a job of responding to your students as you have here. At the same time, I hope you'll continue to maintain the ability to distinguish between someone's ideas and their character, as that is the crucial distinction in an ad hominem argument. In the history of ideas, there have been plenty of actors with poor interpersonal skills who nevertheless have made significant contributions.
Best wishes for a successful course!
Comment by Lutepisc — April 10, 2006 @ 8:36 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
My take is that by going back to Aristotle and other IDists of antiquity, we can get out of the no-it's-not-science-cause-many-scientists-and-at-least-one-court-in-Dover-say-so loop, a loop that plays over and over and over again on the Internet and leads nowhere.
Intelligent, fair, and well-informed Americans can disagree, indeed are BOUND to disagree, about the extent to which religion can be a part of public life (including but not limited to public school curricula) but I sincerely doubt ANYONE is going to claim that teaching ARISTOTLE is breaching the separation of church and state.
And that's one of the perennial benefits attributed to classical studies: they take us FAR out of the here-and-now and force us, sometimes against our wills, to consider ideas shorn of their sociopolitical associations…….
Comment by len — April 10, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
MikeGene wrote:
"For example, there might be a budding ID theorist in MacNeill's class who might be challenged and stimulated to address problems with the mainstream ID arguments." Indeed, there very well might be, and if s/he can convince me that ID has something of value for the progress of science, then s/he deserves the gratitude of us all.
In my opinion, the problem of purpose is perhaps the most difficult (and fascinating) one in all of philosophy. My greatest disappointment in reading Dr. Dembski's books has been that he has not convinced me that he has the solution to this problem. Perhaps a very simple thought experiment might help:
Imagine that I have a cabin at the end of a dirt road in the country. I don't want people driving up the road, so I resolve one day to drive out there and put a barrier to block the road. In the meantime, a large boulder has been undermined by erosion and has slid down a cut-bank into my road. When I arrive, I find the boulder has already accomplished my purpose, and leave it where it is.
Questions:
1) Did the boulder roll into my road "in order to" function as a barrier?
2) If not, why not?
3) If so, where did that purpose come from?
4) Does the answer to the preceding questions change if I collide with a gravel truck on the way and never discover that the road has been blocked?
Here's another one, which comes from an exercise that we will do during the first class meeting (the design of this "natural selection game" is credited to G. Ledyard Stebbins):
Students break up into groups of six. Each group is provided with an "environment": a piece of gingham cloth with a solid background color and a complex colored pattern of dots and swirls in the fabric. Each group is also give a supply of paper dots of five different colors. They spread 20 dots (five of each color to start) on the cloth, then each of them gets to be a "predator", picking 10 dots off the cloth without deliberate searching (they have to pick the first dot they see after glancing down from the ceiling, repeated ten times). After each round of "predation", the remaining 10 dots are replicated and spread around the cloth. At the end of five generations of predation, the results are tallied and compared.
I have used the same six pieces of gingham for the last 30 years, and have gotten very similar results every year. In some "environments" (the red, yellow, and tan ones), the frequencies of surviving dots drift up and down, sometimes going to fixation, sometimes not. In the black & white and pure white "environments", within three generations of selection all the dots are white.
Questions:
1) Are the white dots in the black & white and pure white "environments" white "in order to" survive being removed by predators?
2) If not, why not?
3) If so, where does this purpose come from?
4) Remembering that the different environments result in different outcomes, if you assert that there is a purpose in the colors of the dots, is it the environments that provide such purposes?
General Questions:
1) Does it make sense to say that rocks fall "in order to" reach the ground?
2) Does it make sense to say that snowshoe hares are white "in order to" avoid being eaten by lynxes?
3) Are there any differences between the kind of logic used in these two statements? If not, why not? If so, what is the source of such differences?
4) Infants only a few weeks old can distinguish between dots on a computer screen that move randomly and that move in what appears to be a purposeful way. How do they do this, and why?
5) Are the complex algorithms that Dr. Dembski proposes to distinguish between purposeful (i.e. designed) and non-purposeful objects and processes necessary for such distinctions to be made? If so, where in the infant's mind are those algorithms wired and how are they actualized in the infant's behavior? If not, how does the baby do it?
6) For that matter, how do you distinguish between purposeful and non-purposeful objects and processes?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 10, 2006 @ 8:57 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Hi, Dr. MacNeill, this sounds like a very promising course! It's nice to see an ID course that actually studies it from the proper context (ie, isn't a flame-bait course like Mirecki's or a creationism apologist course under a misleading name).
Anyhow, I thought I'd recommend another book for your optional reading least, if I may be so bold. Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge (listed in our sidebar to the right) would be an excellent book for an interdisciplinary course like yours, I think. It's a philosophical work that ties philosophy of mind together with ID and evolution. It's also very accessible – you don't need to be a trained philosopher to understand the vast majority of it, if you read it carefully. Since part of the purpose of your course is to try and get a handle on the concepts of design and purpose, the book's extended discussion of intentionality and agency would make it perfect, in my opinion. And on the flipside, perhaps Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett, who Menuge responds to in part of his book, would be a good choice.
Comment by Deuce — April 10, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Allen:
No.
Simple effect of non-random selection and the fact your chosen 'predator' uses colour vision.
Assuming that you didn't get white dots and you got an unexpected result, you could immediately infer 'purpose' on the part of someone deliberately ignoring instructions.
The scenario is set up that the environment the dots are placed on naturally means that those sharing the same colour will be noticed less than those that aren't. There obviously isn't any purpose behind why white dots survive over other dots, just the "deficiencies" in the predator involved.
The response I would have to your experiment though is you've designed your environment that naturally produces the organism involved. If the environment wasn't "designed" to produce the resulting dot pattern there would be no difference in what dots ended up there (just random dots). So if dots are designed or 'purposefully' derive a colour to suit the environment is moot, because you've designed your environment so that you can get the white dots.
Comment by Aegeri — April 10, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Deuce wrote:
"Angus Menuge…would be an excellent book for an interdisciplinary course like yours" I have a copy of Menuge's book (it came highly recommended by Michael Ruse), but I haven't had time to read it yet, and I can't expect my students to read something I haven't yet read. I'll include it in the suggested readings, though. I'm still working my way through Stephen Asma's "Following Form and Function" (I recommend it highly to anyone interested in the question/problem of Aristotelian formal and final causes).
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 10, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Allen,
I'd suggest adding Rupert Sheldrake's The Presence of the Past to that recommended reading list.
Comment by MatthewCromer — April 10, 2006 @ 10:04 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Dr. MacNeill, I'm an 11th grade student from Vancouver, Canada and I'm going to apply to Cornell next year. I'll certainly take your course if I get accepted, it sounds exciting.
Comment by jasonng — April 10, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Dr. MacNeill:
Looks like a worthwhile and engaging course, and I am encouraged by your desire to present the material in a fair manner. Thank you also for taking time to set out some of your thoughts above.
Best wishes for a successful course!
Eric
Comment by Eric Anderson — April 10, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Dr. MacNeill,
I certainly hope your course is as you claim it will be. However, given your documented character attacks upon Dr. Dembski (and his "cohorts") tends to cast some doubt upon the hope that it will be genuinely fair and fair-minded. IDists still have "Mirecki" on the brain (or, at least I do). I am not saying you will not teach the class fairly, mind you…I'm just pointing out legitimate reasons for skepticism, just as, I'm sure, you would have the same reservations if the situation was reversed.
Comment by Douglas — April 10, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
[...] udents (like Hannah Maxson) and faculty (like Professor Mark Psiaki) stood up in defiance. Cornell offers course on intelligent design
Filed under: Intelligent Design — scordova @ 9:22 pm
[...]
Pingback by Uncommon Descent » ID course at Cornell — April 10, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
(Pardon my lapse in grammar ["...given...tends to cast doubt..."].)
Comment by Douglas — April 10, 2006 @ 11:23 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Allen,
Let me applaud your reading list.
My wish list for a university course would have had a greater amount of the physics side of ID than listed on your course materials.
I would recommend showing the ID videos, and then the student reading Tipler's account of teleology in physics or even Barrow chapter on the history of teleology in his book.
The developments in physics are too large to be ignored in the ID debate, and I would hope they are at least touched on in your course. I point out a bit of Barrow and Tipler here:
Peer Reviewed ID Classic
What I consider the 3 ID classics:
1. Mystery of Life's Origin
2. Evolution a Theory in Crisis
3. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
These were the 3 works that preceded Phil Johnson and inspired Dembski, Behe, and Johnson and a host of other IDists. The co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle won the Templeton prize.
I would include something from Barrow's book as sampled here:
Modern Teleology and the Anthropic Principles
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 10, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 12:02 am
Dr. MacNeill, if I were at Cornell I would take your course in a heartbeat! Sounds exciting!
The emotions run very high in this design debate. There is enough rancor in this discourse nationwide to light up Chicago. You may want to set up a circuit-breaker in the lecture hall for use in case things get out of hand!
For the record, I am a strong believer in ID, but also find the ancient earth and common ancestry concepts to be most pleasing. Best regards to you, sir!
Comment by apollo230 — April 11, 2006 @ 12:02 am
April 11th, 2006 at 1:55 am
I have no real business commenting on Dr. MacNeill's course or on his intentions in teaching it but I am gratified by this comment he made here (and the fact that he has commented here at all):
This reminded me of what Horowitz had to say in response to Churchill in a recent debate on Churchill's "right to profess".
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=13866
However, I do hope in this statement
that Dr. MacNeill is not presenting himself here as the opponent to his (ID supporting?) students.
Comment by Pez — April 11, 2006 @ 1:55 am
April 11th, 2006 at 7:24 am
Will there be any discussion of 'scientism' in the course?
The so-called 'father of the IDM' wrote in concern of scientism, naturalism and materialism, which became part of the 'culture war' some out there are fighting/arguing about.
Can 'science' (alone) really discover (ontologically or epistemologically) 'purpose in nature'? Perhaps this is the main argument inherent in the course?
Also curious: why was the modifier 'intelligent' left out of the course title?
Ien mentioned 'intelligent Americans,' but this is likely a different communicative context than when IDists suggest the 'intelligence' of certain 'designs.'
Arago
p.s. any possibility of inviting Mike Gene or Krauze as guest speakers? Probably Salvador would pay for their transportation…
Comment by g arago — April 11, 2006 @ 7:24 am
April 11th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Ugghhh, bad english. Should have written 'is' part of the culture war instead of 'became' – that would probably seem to give too much credit to IDism in America. There is no such similar neo-evolution/creation/iD 'culture war' in Canada or Europe. Telic thoughts are also likely freer to be discussed outside 'the land of the free.' :->
Comment by g arago — April 11, 2006 @ 8:53 am
April 11th, 2006 at 11:57 am
[...] his summer entitled Evolution and Design: Is There Purpose in Nature?. Telic Thoughts has picked up on it, and MacNeill has chimed in in the comments. Go read them. Judging by the course description and [...]
Pingback by Ooblog » Blog Archive » ID at Cornell — April 11, 2006 @ 11:57 am
April 11th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Aegeri, your post demonstrates that the question of purpose is one of philosophy and semantics, as you argued both sides of the question. You first said that the color of the white dots was not purposeful, then at the end of your post you said it was purposeful, i.e. it was purposefully designed that way.
This question will never be resolved scientifically until it's defined scientifically, which means that ID advocates are putting the cart before the horse.
Comment by secondclass — April 11, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
In reponse to secondclass:
As you have pointed out, the real problem (and one which I fear Dr. Dembski has not solved) is exactly how one can determine if something has a purpose/is purposeful, and if so how one can determine where such purposes originate and how they are actualized in the object/process under investigation. We all know what purpose is, and we all are very, very good at recognizing it. Indeed, some of us are too good at it. Our "agency detectors" are tuned so high that we see purpose where it almost certainly doesn't exist (i.e. this is what paranoia is). Why are our "agency detectors" tuned so high that some of us become paranoids? Because the consequences of "false negatives" are dire: if we fail to detect an agent (or process) that has designs on us, we are eliminated. That is to say, natural selection has resulted in our having extraordinarily sensitive "agency detectors" because our ancestors who had such detectors survived and reproduced more often than people who didn't.
And not just people, of course. "Agency detection" is as old as the kingdom animalia, perhaps as old as life itself. Any organism who could detect the presence of other purposeful entities would have had a selective advantage over those that did not, and so the ability to detect and/or infer the existence and presence of design/purposefulness has very high selective value.
And yes, I have just made a classical evolutionary argument for our ability to detect design in nature. See why this course is going to be so interesting?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 11, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Dr. MacNeill,
I think Del Ratzsch in his Nature, Design and Science does an excellent job of talking about purpose and "mind correlativity," especially his discussion of primary and secondary marks of design. I'm not sure if you've read it, but I'd highly recommend the book for your Recommended Readings list.
Comment by macht — April 11, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Hi, Dr. MacNeill,
You asked some pretty interesting questions there. My short answer would be that when we say something (an object, a situation, etc) has a purpose, what we mean is that that something was brought about intentionally. So it's not quite apt to speak of things as containing purposes. A lot of confusion can be caused when "X has a purpose" and "X was was brought about on purpose (ie, intentionally)" are used interchangeably. Rather, we are looking at situations, and trying to infer if they were caused by intentionality. Of course, talking about intentionality leads us directly into the philosophy of mind, which is why I recommended those two titles.
And then I would argue that what Dembski is trying to do with his method is not to tease apart those things that are caused intentionally from those that are not, exactly. Rather, he is trying to tease apart those situations where we have rational warrant to conclude that something was done intentionally from those situations where we do not. So, for instance, you may be intentionally leaving that boulder there, but I probably don't have rational warrant to conclude thus.
Comment by Deuce — April 11, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Dr. MacNeill,
Whether your evolutionary explanation of how we came to detect design may or may not be true, but the important question is, Is our ability to recognize design reliable?
Let's take your boulder question as an example: I think most people would say that we don't have sufficient reason to think the boulder was put there purposely. And those who do think it was put there might probably offer a explanation of the following sort: "I prayed that God would help me solve the barrier problem, and behold! He rolled a boulder onto the path."
Now let's spice up the boulder example: It's a flat rock, that stands on its end and fits the width of the path exactly. The nearest hill it could have come from is a mile a way. It weighs several tons and would have had to have been transported by truck, but there are no tire marks, despite ideal soil conditions for leaving tire marks. We had just prayed that God would provide a barrier, since we don't have the money or resources to make one.
We may still not be sure that the boulder was placed there on purpose, but our "evolved" design detectors should be humming rather loudly, don't you think?
Comment by Bilbo — April 11, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Dr. MacNeill,
I'm not suggesting solutions to your problems, but I do want to make some comments that might pave the way for legitimate answers. What I'd like to suggest is that the main line of inquiry that you'll find all the complications on these issues is at the intersection of epistemology and ontology. Thinking that something was designed does not make it designed, however, design is property that epistemic agents attribute to certain physical events (just like epistemic agents attribute the property of being a soccer ball to certain objects).
The first thing, I think, to note, is that Dembski is usually careful to point out that his method is a *reconstruction* of the design inference. Just like very few people actually think that propositional logic accurately reflects how humans think, Dembski's design inference was never meant to be a model of how humans make design inferences. It is meant to be a precise, mathematical reconstruction of such inferences that makes them *more rigorous* and less prone to false positives.
So, for question 5:
The answer is no and we don't know exactly, though I'm sure it has something to do with the biological systems that undergird the recognition of "other minds". Some form of pattern recognition.
No.
Because that pattern of event is perfectly explainable (note: explainable, not just consistent with) by processes determined wholly by the laws of physics.
No. Still no purpose. We're talking causal explanations, right. Not interpreted purpose.
Only on an outdated view of ontology.
2) Does it make sense to say that snowshoe hares are white "in order to" avoid being eaten by lynxes?
Yes, it makes sense in two contexts, but is false in the third In the first context, we'd be talking about system intrinsic purpose (which I think is consistent with a variety of theories of evolution). In the second context, we could be talking about system intrinsic purpose (like, the clock moves to tell time).
Yes. The source of such differences lies at the level of capacities/properties. Sure, both things are made of atoms. But one thing has a pattern of abilities/behaviors that the other thing does not.
I suppose that their neural system gives them this ability to differentiate types of patterns in the world. I tend to trust the distinctions that infants make as simplistic but veridical distinctions.
It is a distinction rooted in the cause (or history) of a thing. It requires that one makes an ontological distintion at the level of *types* of causes.
Comment by bipod — April 11, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Btw, following up on bipod's post about Dembski's method being a reconstruction of the design inference, I think it maps in a rough way to how our normal way of inferring design proceeds, but makes things explicit that for us are normally implicit.
Generally speaking, I think our thought process goes something like this. We see a pattern that needs to be explained, for whatever reason (this maps to specification). Then, we intuitively think "Gee, that's really unlikely" (this maps to complexity). And putting them together, we conclude that it was probably intentional. Actually, I'd say we probably do both stages simultaneously (Dembski has pointed out that you can do the nodes of his tree in different order).
What Dembski has done is to try to make this explicit. Some patterns that we think need explanation may not really exist, or the reason that we think they need an explanation was imagined up by ourselves (for instance, we see a cloud, and convince ourselves it looks just like Abraham Lincoln). That's why he makes the distinction between specifications and fabrications (strictly speaking, imo, the problem with fabrications isn't that they aren't designed per se; rather they're a case of us attributing our own design to someone else). And he wants to replace "Gee, that's really unlikely" with actual numerical estimates.
Comment by Deuce — April 11, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Dr. MacNeill, your propositions about "agency detectors" have the form of empirically-based statments, when actually they're not. They're just a bit deceptive that way.
For instance, you said:
So if we could travel back in time and interview our ancient ancestors, we would find more individuals with less sensitive agency detectors than is presently the case, right? (If so, you would have support for your hypothesis…which regrettably isn't stated with the tentativeness of a hypothesis.)
Oddly, though, you seem to believe that the former state of affairs–in which our less-sensitive agency detectors were less inclined to make us paranoid–would be more adaptive than our present state of affairs, with our overly-sensitive agency detectors and increased paranoia. On the surface of it, evolutionary processes would seem to have led us backward, then, and you now wish to have us move forward again.
And do we have any cognitive control over the set points of these "agency detectors?" Can we choose to set them higher or lower? If not, then what is the point of making any sort of argument about whether they're too sensitive or not? Shouldn't we, instead, just count on natural selection doing its work?
And just what is an "agency detector," anyway? Where is it located?
Thank you.
Comment by Lutepisc — April 11, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Secondclass
This was exactly what I wanted to demonstrate. I couldn't have criticised my own argument better. If the organisms aren't designed, I can simply switch the argument and claim that the environment was designed (hence designing the organisms I want). Heads I win, tails you lose. Good fun.
Comment by Aegeri — April 11, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
When there are a multitude of things out there that really are trying to get you, paranoia is highly adaptive. An early human with an overactive agency detection system would indeed have been more likely to see things that weren't there, but he or she would also have been more likely to have noticed things that were there – and when you're a small, tasty protein-rich snack in a world teeming with predators, that's decidedly adaptive.
Comment by Mesk — April 11, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
So you're arguing that the world has become a markedly safer place?
Comment by Lutepisc — April 11, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
You know…I wouldn't be so paranoid if everyone wasn't out to eat me.
Comment by Bilbo — April 11, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
In response to the posts about my "natural selection game":
How you answer the questions about the outcomes depends on which of Aristotle's four causes you are applying, to whit:
"¢ Material Cause: The surviving white dots (the ones that were all that were left in the black & white and white environments) were white because they were composed of white paper.
"¢ Efficient Cause: The surviving white dots were white because their "parents" were white.
"¢ Formal Cause: The surviving white dots were white because only white dots could survive in such environments; that is, each white dot was a member of the formal category "surviving white dots."
"¢ Final Cause: The surviving white dots were white in order to survive being "eaten" by the "predators."
As many philosophers of science have pointed out, modern natural science recognizes only material and efficient causes; formal and final causes have generally been shown to be unnecessary for scientific explanations. Even Newton, who in his private writings was clearly a believer in occult and supernatural "final" causes, used only material and efficient causes in his scientific explanations.
That's why the last two explanations listed above sound peculiar to most of us. And indeed, it is literally true that the fundamental reason that the white dots that survived in the two environments were white is that their parents were white. I have fingers and eyes and monoamine oxidase because I inherited the genetic programs for the construction of these things from my parents, as they did from theirs. The real challenge to evolutionary biologists is to figure out where these programs come from, and how they are expressed in living organisms. Simply saying "the intelligent designer/God put them there" isn't a very satisfying answer.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 11, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
April 11th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
Allen,
The issue of ultimate causes in biology is surfacing in peer-reviewed books and journals. Yockey (2004) beleives the origin of life is resolvable only with reference to ultimate causes like the origin of matter. Voie (2006) wrote a paper on the same issue which outlines the arguments for ultimate caues quite effectively for any one familiar with the information sciences.
If there are any IDists in your course who would like pointers, I'd be happy to give them some. I think the reading list you gave was very fair, however, the information was far too specialized in some cases to give the students a proper perspective of ID. The books which Dembski and Behe in the course they taught were written by Michael Denton. I would consider that book foundational as that book was one of the most influential ID books around.
I should mention, the ID videas are available for preview online, and I think they should be shown in class.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 11, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
April 12th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Well put, Deuce, on both of your last posts.
Comment by Eric Anderson — April 12, 2006 @ 12:16 am
April 12th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Dr. MacNeil,
Re: Aristotle's four causes. It is certainly clear in the literature that Dembski-ID is interested in formal and final causes more than material or efficient causes. This explains (among other things) why the 'identity of the Designer' is kept a mystery.
I don't personally agree that 'modern natural science' (that bitch-goddess) should be reduced to only two causes – in this (as shocking as it is to say) I actually agree with Salvador (but where did his 'ultimate' come from?). But then again, 'evolution' and 'design' have implications/relevance outside either Dembski's or Cordova's realms of influence and knowledge. So those who do apply formal and final causality already in their scientific/scholarly work should be welcomed rather than shunned from discussion.
Will you discuss 'scientism' in your course?
Why was the modifier 'intelligent' or 'intelligence' left out of the title? Perhaps this could do with it's own thread…if you're willing to discuss it here.
Regards,
G. Arago
Comment by g arago — April 12, 2006 @ 11:06 am
April 12th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I agree with Salvador that Michael Denton's books are excellent … "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny". I would encourage Professor MacNeill to add one or both of these to the reading list. Professor MacNeill does seem open-minded to viewpoints other than Darwinism and this is commendable … quite refreshing to me having experienced alot of censorship and vilification from Darwinists.
Comment by afdave — April 12, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
April 12th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Personally, I don't think including the modifier "intelligent" does anything; can design be "unintelligent?" Furthermore, the entire concept of "intelligence" is a black hole of controversy. Like "purpose" we all know "intelligence" when we see it, but trying to define it in an operational way (i.e. in a way in which actual data can be collected and analyzed) is difficult if not impossible.
Indeed, I prefer to use the word "purpose", or even better "teleology", rather than "design." The word "teleology" has a long and respectible pedigree in Western philosophy (and I note that this blog contains a direct reference to it
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 12, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
April 12th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
I would recommend Denton's book "Nature's Destiny" over his other book "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis" because over the years Denton has distanced himself from the latter. I'm not sure what arguments from "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis" he still holds to. However, it was a great book for its time. I especially liked a chapter near the end of the book entitled "The Puzzle of Perfection." In this chapter, Denton turns to the issue of design and includes a section that is almost poetic and inspiring. Here is a quote:
Comment by Jack — April 12, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
April 12th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
"Dr. MacNeill, I'm an 11th grade student from Vancouver, Canada and I'm going to apply to Cornell next year. I'll certainly take your course if I get accepted, it sounds exciting."
It's nice to hear from someone whose actually excited by learning. I wish you all the luck in the world, jasonng!
(I heard you. Even if all the other "adults" didn't.)
I hope Dr. MacNeill makes it an exciting and challenging course.
Comment by Rock — April 12, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
April 13th, 2006 at 5:55 am
Dr. MacNeil,
If you prefer 'purpose' or 'teleology' instead of 'design' then I suggest you solicit assistance/counsel from a non-natural scientist/scholar. The former concepts are prominent and discussed at length (or presumed) in humanitarian/social sciences, while natural scientists often struggle to properly contextualize them.
This is in fact a large part of the problem of misunderstanding; the natural sciences condescend toward humanitarian/social sciences at the same time that persons like Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski draw parallels with human-made things (e.g. mousetrap, Mt. Rushmore, Easter Island).
I agree with your general sentiment about not needing the qualifier 'intelligent' (apparently it is not an 'intelligent' revolution, but a 'design' revolution) but also acknowledge that there can indeed be 'unintelligent' design. I wonder, do 'we' all know a 'lack of intelligence' when we see/hear it?
I'm also curious to learn more about the (positive, creative) sense in which you will use the term 'teleology' in your course. Probably this would be a hot topic at Telic Thoughts to explore.
Arago
Comment by g arago — April 13, 2006 @ 5:55 am
April 13th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Hi Bilbo,
If you want to go off-topic, here's the place to do it.
Comment by Krauze — April 13, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
April 13th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Teaching ID
We've gotten a few concerned looks from friends in the wider ID community over our endorsement of Cornell's new course on intelligent design, EEB 467 . . .
…
Trackback by The Design Paradigm — April 13, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
April 13th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
I'll be nice to Krauze, Art, and post my response at the open thread. Thanks Krauze.
Comment by Bilbo — April 13, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
April 14th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
The Design Paradigm writes: "We've gotten a few concerned looks from friends in the wider ID community over our endorsement of Cornell's new course on intelligent design, EEB 467 . . ."
I'm curious, who's been giving the concerned looks?
Comment by Bilbo — April 14, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
April 15th, 2006 at 12:11 am
"It's nice to hear from someone whose actually excited by learning. I wish you all the luck in the world, jasonng!
(I heard you. Even if all the other "adults" didn't.) "
Haha thanks.
Comment by jasonng — April 15, 2006 @ 12:11 am